DOJ-OGR-00005721.jpg
738 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
4
Events
1
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
738 KB
Summary
This document is a legal argument from a court filing, asserting that a specific document should be inadmissible as evidence. The core argument is that the document is not a reliable business record because it was created specifically in anticipation of litigation against Mr. Epstein, not in the ordinary course of business. The text cites several legal precedents to support this position and outlines the stringent requirements for a document to qualify under the business records exception to the hearsay rule.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Epstein | Subject of litigation |
Mentioned as 'Mr. Epstein', the individual against whom litigation was anticipated, leading to the creation of the do...
|
| Palmer | Party in a legal case |
Party in the cited case 'Palmer v. Hoffman'.
|
| Hoffman | Party in a legal case |
Party in the cited case 'Palmer v. Hoffman'.
|
| Casoni | Party in a legal case |
Party in the cited case 'United States v. Casoni'.
|
| Missimer | Party in a legal case |
Party in the cited case 'Missimer v. Tiger Machine Co.'.
|
| Pelullo | Party in a legal case |
Party in the cited case 'United States v. Pelullo'.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Timberlake Const. Co. | Company |
A party in the cited case 'Timberlake Const. Co. v. U.S. Fidelity and Guar. Co.'.
|
| U.S. Fidelity and Guar. Co. | Company |
A party in the cited case 'Timberlake Const. Co. v. U.S. Fidelity and Guar. Co.'.
|
| Tiger Machine Co. | Company |
A party in the cited case 'Missimer v. Tiger Machine Co.'.
|
| United States | Government agency |
A party in the cited cases 'United States v. Casoni' and 'United States v. Pelullo'.
|
Timeline (4 events)
1995-01-01
The case of Timberlake Const. Co. v. U.S. Fidelity and Guar. Co., which established that preparing a document in anticipation of litigation is not acting in the regular course of business.
2005-09-28
The case of Missimer v. Tiger Machine Co., cited for the requirements to establish the source of information in a business record.
E.D.Pa.
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Abbreviation for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, mentioned in the citation...
|
Relationships (1)
The document states it is from 'lawyers representing plaintiffs against Epstein'.
Key Quotes (1)
"It is well-established that one who prepares a document in anticipation of litigation is not acting in the regular course of business."Source
— Timberlake Const. Co. v. U.S. Fidelity and Guar. Co.
(Cited as legal precedent to argue that a document prepared for litigation is not a business record.)
DOJ-OGR-00005721.jpg
Quote #1
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document